THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


WORKING GROUP 


PROCEDURES REVIEWS 


The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 


Meeting on Procedures Reviews held telephonically on 


June 26, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

June 26, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEW WADE, DFO 


MS. WANDA MUNN, CHAIR 


LIST OF PROCEDURES REVIEWED IS/IS NOT ADEQUATELY 


COMPREHENSIVE 10 

WERE REVIEWS APPROPRIATE 28 


SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS 55 


SC&A’S FUTURE SELECTIONS 59 


PER’S 63 

MATRIX 70 

SCHEDULING 90 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 99 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 


HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


MARSCHAE, STEVE, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6 

JUNE 26, 2007
 

10:00 a.m.


 P R O C E E D I N G S 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS


 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade and I have the 


privilege of serving as the Designated Federal 


Official to the Advisory Board. This is the 


meeting of –- work group of the Advisory Board, 


this is the work group focusing on procedures 


reviews. That’s task three under the SC&A 


contract in support of the Board reviewing 


various NIOSH and ORAU procedures. The work 


group is chaired by Wanda Munn with members, 


Gibson, Griffon, Ziemer, Presley designated as 


an alternate. Is Mark Griffon with us yet? 


(No response) 


Okay, so we have Wanda with us, -- Mike and 


Paul. And, we should proceed I think. Ray, 


you’re with us and functioning? 


COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. 


DR. WADE: Very good. What I would do is ask 


first if there are any other members of the 


Board present on this call, other than the 


named members of the work group? Any other 


members of the Board? 


(No responses) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7

 That’s fine then, we don’t have a quorum of the 


Board and we can proceed. I guess I would ask, 


in turn, NIOSH, ORAU folks to identify 


themselves, SC&A folks and then other feds who 


are on the call by virtue of their employment. 


Then I will give you a little discussion of 


phone etiquette and Wanda will reinforce that, 


and then we’ll begin our business. 


So, let me start by asking members of the 


NIOSH/ORAU team who are on the call to identify 


themselves. 


MR. HINNEFELD: There might not be any others 


Lew, I think that -– of -- given the situation 


of trying to get ready for this, I don’t know 


that they -- they know about it, but I’m not 


sure that we instructed them specifically to be 


on there. 


 DR. WADE: That’s fine, I’m sure you’re more 


than enough, Stu. Members of the SC&A team? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, good morning, this is John 


Mauro, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Good morning, John. 


 DR. BEHLING: Hans and Kathy. 


DR. WADE: Thank you both for joining us. 


MR. MARSCHAE: Steve Marschae. 

8

1 

2 

 DR. WADE: Could you repeat that name again, 


please? 


MR. MARSCHAE: Steve Marschae. 


DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. 


MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow. 


DR. WADE: Thank you. Other SC&A -– team 

members? 

(No responses) 

What about other federal employees who are on 


the call by virtue of their employment? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus with HHS. 


MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell with HHS. 


MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang with NIOSH. 


DR. WADE: Anyone else? 


(No responses) 


Anyone else on the call who’d like to be 


identified for the record? 


COURT REPORTER: Dr. Wade, excuse me, this is 


Ray, could I get the spelling of the last name 


of the first Steve with SC&A who identified? 


MR. MARSCHAE: M-a-r-s-c-h-a-e. 


COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 


DR. WADE: Anyone else who would like to be 


identified? 


(No responses) 

9 

By way of telephone etiquette, you know, a 


couple of different paths to follow. One, Ray 


has noticed that as we do more and more phone 


calls, the major participants get a little bit 


lax and we need you to -– when you’re speaking, 


to speak clearly into the head-set -– hand-set, 


and make sure that you identify yourselves 


before you speak. Again, do your best to, to 


be sure that everyone, including Ray, can 


understand you so that we get accurate 


transcripts. 


For all of the rest of us again, remember, use 


the hand-set when you’re speaking -– mute 


whatever system you’re on when you’re not 


speaking, don’t try and participate via a 


speaker phone, for a variety of reasons. You 


can listen by a speaker phone if you’re on 


mute, but if you’re speaking, speak into the 


hand-set; I think it works better for everyone. 


Again, remember the background noises, while 


they might be regular and common for you and 


your brain filters them out, it can be very 


distracting for others and again, be mindful of 


the fact that if you have to put your phone on 


hold and you get into Muzak, the rest of us 

10 

don’t want to listen that. So -– Wanda, I’ll 


turn it over to you and you can continue with 


the etiquette discussion and then begin your 


business. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you, Lew. I intend to 


interrupt anyone who is talking over someone 


else and ask if you could be very cautious 


about doing this one at a time, for Ray’s 


benefit and for our future benefit and our 


minutes may serve us very well, especially in 


situations like this where we have been so long 


away from this particular topic and are having 


to go back quite a bit in our memories and in 


our records to pull out some of the items that 


we want to touch on. 


LIST OF PROCEDURES REVIEWED IS/IS NOT ADEQUATELY 


COMPREHENSIVE
 

I’m assuming that all the work group members 


have my email from last week, asking you to 


look at some specific things and to address a 


few elementary questions in your review of what 


we had there. If it’s all right with all of 


you, I’d like to go through those questions 


first and make sure that we are all sort of on 


the same path, and thinking the same things 

11 

with respect to these reviews. The first 


question I posed was, whether the selection of 


the procedures that were reviewed was 


adequately comprehensive. This, of course, is 


not fully in our hands, the Board selects these 


things and -- but, you have a list of what they 


are and you hopefully have some memory of where 


we were last year in 2006 when we were looking 


at the previous group. So, does anyone have 


any thoughts or any comments with respect to 


that particular question? 


DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I have a couple 


of comments. Number one, I think when we 


selected the list, we felt that it was 


comprehensive. It appears to me that it still 


-- that still is the case, however, I think I 


would like to hear also from either John Mauro 


or maybe one of the other SC&A staffers after 


they have had a chance -- they’ve now had a 


chance to look -- and we now have the 


supplement two -- I think it’s the latest one 


which is the May report, and I wondered if SC&A 


felt that there were any gaps relative to -- 


what they see as they do the, both the dose 


reconstructions and the site profile reviews -- 

12 

anything glaring that they thought was missing. 


DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro, I -- yeah -- I 


-- perhaps I could help out a bit. As it 


stands, as of today, and this fiscal year, a 


total of a hundred and four procedures are -- 


were either completed reviewed, sixty of them, 


the reviews are complete and you folks have two 


reports in your hands where thirty of those 


procedures were reviewed. There’s another 


forty-three that are very close to completion 


and Steve Marschae on the line is in the home 


stretch of putting that report together to 


deliver. So, in effect, all we have is -- the 


collective number of procedures from the 


beginning of the project is -- is a hundred and 


four. I believe the last round, the set of 


approximately forty-three, that are in the home 


stretch right now, a concerted effort was made 


at the time, in the living way, to try to make 


the current. That is, we had our initial list 


when we -- when we met -- about a year ago, to 


identify. But then as we went on it was clear 


that there are many other procedures that were 


being reviewed as a result of Y-12. K-25, Oak 


Ridge, Rocky Flats, all of which were 

13 

procedures that were being reviewed as part of 


the site profile and SEC process. And what we 


did is incorporate those reviews into this, the 


work product that you are about to get. So, I 


guess, my perspective right now is that we’re 


pretty current with the product that you will 


be receiving in July. We will be pretty 


current with respect to making every effort to 


have reviewed all of the, I would say, 


important procedures that emerged. A lot did 


emerge over the past year because of the great 


deal of amount of work that was accomplished. 


Now, I guess I’m at a point now, where I guess 


I would have to look to Stu and NIOSH regarding 


either other procedures that have been in -- 


put on systems that are sort of really 


fundamental and have some generic applicability 


across the board, or revisions, major revisions 


of previous procedures that have been reviewed 


and I guess we -- it’s really a matter of 


looking toward NIOSH to help us out in helping 


identify, you know, -- remember Task III is 


more oriented toward the generic procedures, 


and our expectation is that specific, you know, 


site-specific procedures are very much a part 

14 

of our site profile reviews. Now, so I guess 


in terms of looking to the future, the judgment 


will have to be made as, okay, there may be 


some new procedures that are -- have been 


developed, or, will be developed. And there 


are procedures that are undergoing revision, 


and I think there will have to be some 


collective judgment as to, out of those, which 


ones of those, really, we should address within 


the fiscal year 2008 and which ones of those 


are probably going to be addressed as a result 


of site profile reviews that are being planned 


for fiscal year 2008. So, it’s -- it’s -- it’s 


a -- it’s not a straightforward process, it’s ­

- it’s just -- I think collectively these 


judgments need to be made and that’s how I see 


where we are right now. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, okay, I’ll follow onto 


what John has said and I would say that in 


general, the technical document production that 


we are engaged in is -- tends -- right now, 


tends to be sort of site specific, co-worker 


dataset type of approaches. And so, the 


generic procedure approaches are somewhat less 


prevalent in terms of current preparation than, 

15 

than it was earlier because of the existing 


biogeneric procedures and -- you know, kind of 


slowing down -- in the identification of cases 


when a generic procedure would be particularly 


helpful to us. So, I think I’m at a little 


disadvantage being on the road and I wasn’t -- 


and I brought many of the procedure items with 


me onto my memory stick, but I’ve neglected to 


bring the Excel worksheet that I sent last week 


that was the updated list of technical 


documents of procedures and OTIBs from ORAU 


that kind of reflect work, the recent work 


since the last time that I generated that list. 


So, I’m working a little bit of disadvantage 


here, it would seem that some, you know -- if 


we can draw a line in the sand on some day and 


say, on this day we felt like we had been kind 


of fairly comprehensive in the selection of 


items to review, then we can use that as the -- 


as sort of the line in the sand and then just 


look at new documents or revisions of documents 


at that time as they come in, as potential 


items. 


MS. MUNN: That certainly meshes with my 


overview of what I think I’m looking at, and 

16 

you have my sympathy, Stu, for not having your 


full component of information available to you. 


I discovered in mid-afternoon yesterday this 


rather comprehensive file I had put together in 


preparation for this call has been misfiled in 


my less than neat office and I was unable to 


resurrect it, so I’m also working from bits and 


pieces of sketchy reconstructed information, 


instead of my full file. So, my -- my feeling 


was very similar to what both John and Stu have 


expressed. It appears to me that we more than 


likely have covered the major generic issues 


that seem to affect the entire complex, but, I 


don’t have a strong feel, personally, for how 


many major revisions have come out of the work 


that’s been done over the last year. 


DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer, could I ask a 


follow-up question on what has been done? 


Again, I think this may be to SC&A, but John, 


in your June 8th memo, you gave us a chart of 


the FY2007 Procedures Authorized for Review. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: And, there were maybe ten or so of 


those that are listed as “to be reviewed.” 


Now, my question is, and this memo is as of 

-- 

17 

June 8th, are -- or maybe this should be 


directed to Steve -- those ones identified as 


“to be reviewed,” are those ones that will be 


covered in this upcoming report that you’re 


currently, sort of, bringing to closure now? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. What we were trying to do in 


that table was to give a status report. Out of 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: I think there are about forty-five 


on that list. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: And, what we tried to do is -- in 


fact, that list actually was lifted directly 


from one of our latest progress reports. And, 


what we tried to do is to identify, okay, we 


have a code of I believe of forty-five on the 


list. And out of the forty-five, you can see 


that the vast majority of them say completed. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right, there’s maybe ten or twelve 


that say “to be reviewed” and -- I kind of 


assumed that that simply means you hadn’t 


completed them, but that they would be 


completed by the time of your report that’s 


coming up next month or whenever it is or this 

18 

month perhaps. 


DR. MAURO: That is correct. And there are a 


couple, I think two, that are not going to be 


reviewed because I don’t think they’re out yet 


and Steve Marschae or Stu, you may be able to 


help clarify, I believe those are items that -- 


so in effect, the original plan was to deliver 


a review of forty-five, but I think we’re 


actually going to be delivering a review of 


forty--


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think there were a couple 


that were identified as not having been issued 


actually. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. 


MS. MUNN: I think that’s correct, OTIB-45. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


MS. MUNN: Program at Y-12 and -- 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


MS. MUNN: And OTIB-63 --


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right, right. 


MS. MUNN: -- bioassay data project. 


DR. ZIEMER: And then maybe another Rocky Flats 


one that was awaiting revision, although maybe 


you’ve done that one by now. 


DR. MAURO: It’s -- yeah. 

19 

DR. ZIEMER: Fifty-eight. 


DR. MAURO: We do have a little bit of a living 


process with the procedures and we try to stay 


current. But eventually, we do sort of draw a 


line and say, okay, this is what we’ve got 


delivered --


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: And we’re at that point now, we’ve 


sort of frozen the fluid nature of which 


procedures are in it and which procedures are 


out and that was the intent of the last 


progress report and the handouts at the last 


meeting, so that everyone could say, okay, this 


is the product that you will be receiving in 


July. And, we’ve sort of frozen any further 


evolution of the list. What I think is of 


interest is when I looked at Stu’s list that he 


sent out on June 18th, I have it in front of 


me, -- I -- I recognize a lot of those 


procedures and I have to say, I’m not sure 


which of those are in this list, Stu, are 


procedures that certainly -- like for example, 


the very first one -- this is a good example by 


the way folks. The very first one on Stu’s 


list is OTIB001, related to Savannah River -- 

20 

for example, I -- I -- and it’s dated 7-15­

2003. So, this looks like a relatively recent 


document. So, Stu, am I -- are we looking at 


right now --


DR. ZIEMER: No, ‘03. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, I’m sorry, it says ‘03 -- 


MS. MUNN: ‘03. 


DR. MAURO: So this is an old one. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, a very old one. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah -- well, Stu -- is the list 


that we’re looking at, a list that I guess that 


you -- that you captured as procedures that we 


-- or either have been revised and are not part 


of our current active program for review or do 


we need to do a little work, perhaps, SC&A 


could sit down with this list and cross-walk it 


back to our work products and identify which of 


these -- you know, we have in fact or are 


reviewing or which represent, perhaps, 


revisions, and perhaps major revisions to ones 


that we either have or are in the process of 


reviewing? I guess this boundary between, you 


know, new and old, is a little fuzzy. Would it 


be productive for SC&A to take a look at that 


and try to track these -- map these back onto 

21 

what we’ve already done or are currently doing? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Are you speaking about the -- 


the Excel file I sent last week? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. I have a file that you sent 


that’s dated -- looks like the June 18th . 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the list was prepared on 


18, I -- I grabbed that off of our -- our 


storage location where we have the -- ORAU, you 


know, keeps up to date the procedure document 


list that they’ve provided or that are 


approved, those are the approved ones. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, so these are -- okay, so 


these represent the universe of procedures? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: These are all ORAU procedures? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that’s ORAU. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, so it is the -- oh, okay -- 


So, what we really have then -- the question, I 


guess before us then would be, okay, for the 


ORAU procedures, not the -- not the OCAS 


procedures --


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Is there anything on this list, 


that we have not already reviewed and -- I 


guess, you know, -- I -- I -- I couldn’t do 

22 

that -- I did not do that or we did not do that 


for the purposes of this conference call, but 


certainly, that would be something worth doing. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, and revision number is 


on there as well, revision number -- 


DR. MAURO: With the revision -- 


MR. HINNEFELD: So, you can tell whether 


they’re -- for instance, if you had reviewed 


the document and there has subsequently been a 


revision --


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- you can see if that 


situation has occurred and then you could -­

there could be some judgments made about 


whether additional -- you know, based on the 


original comments is additional -- a look at it 


warranted, or something like that. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I think that, that would 


probably be, be able to be done very 


expeditiously, that is we quick take a look -- 


go down our list, go down this list and cross, 


cross-walk it and see which ones have the 


little check mark, yep, this has already been 


reviewed, already been reviewed, or is being 


reviewed, or this is a new one that we’ve never 

23 

seen before and we didn’t review it or this is 


a revision -- the -- the area that I think 


might be a little bit fuzzy is that I know you 


folks make revisions like yeah, PC1’s and PC2’s 


and sometimes those revisions are really 


relatively minor. They just mop up -- which 


really don’t warrant a full blown treatment and 


I -- I guess, Kathy, you had -- you had 


mentioned the other day that probably by 


looking at the very front of each of these 


procedures to get a sense of how big the 


changes are from the previous one and we could 


probably, pretty quickly, judge whether or not 


this represents a significant change from a 


previous procedure or not, you know, it 


wouldn’t take a large effort to make that 


judgment. 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. Yes, 


that’s correct John, and in fact when you see a 


revision that says PC1 and PC2, that’s just a 


page change. And as I’m looking down Steve’s 


list, at this point I don’t see any procedures 


that we have not reviewed and I believe we’re 


current even on these other revisions. But, 


we’ll have to take one final look at it and -- 

24 

be able to -- to verify that. But, yeah, up 


front, NIOSH puts in a little statement as to ­

- just how -- how many -- how many changes are 


-- are incorporated in that revision and 


whether it’s a complete rewrite and whether the 


ORAU people need training on it. So, that can 


certainly help us determine which procedures 


that have been revised need to be -- looked at 


again by -- by -- NI -- SC&A. 


MR. PRESLEY: Hey, this is Bob Presley. Let me 


ask you a question. 


MS. MUNN: Hi, Bob, welcome. 


MR. PRESLEY: Hey, I’ve been on here for awhile 


-- I had a little problem. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I’m glad you solved it. 


MR. PRESLEY: We -- if you did that, who would 


make the decision -- for which documents needed 


to be reviewed or which documents didn’t need 


to be reviewed? 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. And, if 


you’re asking me to respond to that -- 


MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: What we typically have done is we 


will just bring that list back to the Board and 


let you make the decision as to whether you 

25 

want us to -- to review -- a revised procedure. 


MR. PRESLEY: That’s what I wanted to hear. 

Thank you. 

MS. BEHLING: You’re welcome. 

MS. MUNN: Perhaps that’s one issue that we can, 


at least, have a better handle on before we 


take our work group report to the full Board. 


I attempted to start doing just exactly that 


with the matrix that we have for the current 


group and discovered that a significant number 


of -- of items that were on the list had indeed 


been covered in this new matrix. But, I didn’t 


have an opportunity to do that from the 2005 


matrix from the original one. Which, if memory 


serves me correct, we had virtually completed 


with -- I think, John, you mentioned in one of 


your recent reports that there were one or two 


items from that first group that still had 


minor outstanding issues on them. 


DR. MAURO: That’s correct, it -- 


MS. MUNN: Do you know -- do you know -- can 


you give me a note, after we’ve completed our 


discussion here, itemizing those specific 


leftovers from the original report? 


DR. MAURO: Yep. 

26 

MS. MUNN: If you could that, I’d certainly 


appreciate it because my -- the matrix that I 


have is pretty marked up and my own notes are 


now confusing to me. 


DR. MAURO: We’d be happy to not only do that, 


but also provide a quick itemization of 


procedures we have not reviewed, using Stu’s 


list, and revisions that have been issued that 


are some substance that -- that we haven’t 


reviewed. So, this way you can actually have 


like a little lookup table that would allow you 


to -- to say, okay, here’s what has not been 


reviewed. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Of course it would really identify 


those that we really owe you on, because there 


are a couple that we never reviewed. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. MAURO: But there are others that, you 


know, -- then there are the others that we -- 


that you may decide you’d like to have reviewed 


or not for fiscal year 2008. And, I think that 


could be done pretty easily, ‘cause we’re in 


pretty good shape. 


MS. MUNN: That’s good. Because, I -- I would 

-- 

27 

like to see those outstanding items since it 


wasn’t immediately obvious to me when I looked 


at that matrix, what they were. 


DR. MAURO: I know there are at least two, and 


they had to do with the outreach programs. 


They were like ninety-one and ninety -- ninety 


and ninety-two. 


MS. MUNN: And --


DR. MAURO: They were -- they were problematic 


for some reason, I have to go back and 


resurrect some of the correspondence. But, 


you’re absolutely right, there are a couple 


that we -- we put on ice, so to speak. 


MS. MUNN: All right, I think we even said, 


didn’t we, that ninety was kind of a moot 


point, that you didn’t need to do that and we 


would delay ninety-two for some reason. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. I think it’s important that 


the -- we close the loop, so to speak, on this 


MS. MUNN: Gap --


DR. MAURO: It would be a good idea to get out 


a memo to this effect, and that would be pretty 


straightforward if that’s what you’d like. 


MS. MUNN: That would be most helpful I think 

28 

for, not only the work group, but for our 


report to the Board as well. Since that kind 


of thing has been one of the things we’ve tried 


to capture in our overarching issues is how we, 


we track these things. If we can track them 


inside the work group, it’s much more concise 


and much easier for the whole Board to deal 


with I think. 


DR. MAURO: Good, okay. 


WERE REVIEWS APPROPRIATE
 

MS. MUNN: Next, question. Were the reviews 


themselves appropriate? Were they reasonable 


in depth and level of detail? 


MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, this is Mark Griffon. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, hi Mark, welcome. 


MR. GRIFFON: Hi. I’ve been on a little while 


too, but --


MS. MUNN: We’re glad you’re here. We thought 


perhaps we’d lost you. 


MR. GRIFFON: I just had a comment on the first 


question --


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: -- before we left that. I -- I 


think -- I agree that the -- you know, we’re 


focusing on the generic procedures that -- I 

29 

think it might be worth asking now, and I’m not 


sure -- I was trying to pull my notes together 


now too and I don’t have everything in front of 


me, but -- there are some procedures that have 


come up -- or are -- I don’t even know if 


they’ve been completed or where they stand, but 


I think they’re certainly important generic 


procedures like the overarching ingestion 


approach -- the approach for ingestion, you 


know, throughout the AWE’s at least or the 


uranium sites, that’s -- I don’t know how 


exactly it’s going to be handled, but it’s 


definitely a broad, sort of, procedure that 


they’re developing. This came -- some of these 


came out of the Bethlehem Steel discussions, 


off of the resuspension model approach I think 


was another one that was -- we were told was 


going to be turned into a broad, generic 


approach. The fission product internal dose, 


approach for fission products when you don’t 


have all the information on radionuclides. So, 


I don’t know if -- if Stu can give us, kind of, 


an update on some of these -- I think we at 


least need to feel -- be cognizant of those. 


agree that any site specific ones going 


I 
30 

forward, I think we handle them in the site 


profile review process, but -- but these 


broader ones have to probably be captured in 


this process. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I can offer a little of 


what I know on that of -- to my knowledge, the 


overarching issues on ingestion and re-


suspension haven’t been finalized yet. I have 


to check -- I have to get to Jim and see where 


we are and what the status of those is. My 


recollection -- or from this review I believe 


the -- one of the procedures reviewed in the 


first supplement, I believe, was an ingestion ­

- I think it was an OCAS TIB on ingestion, 


(unintelligible) from ingestion. Now we’ve 


commented on that review -- kind of reflected 


the comments that are outstanding on the 


ingestion approach and would be addressed by 


that. So, there may be a -- a revision to that 


TIB that -- it seems to be, you know, working, 


kind of, without everything in front of me, but 


it would seem to be the origin of that TIB 


would be the point to incorporate that, you 


know, the ultimate overarching -- resolution. 


And I also -- you know, it may be that that -- 

31 

the resolution that this is the expected -- you 


know, coming to the Board with that expected 


resolution of that overarching issue and say 


this is the resolution. Maybe having that 


vetted in that form before or -- you know, 


before the TIB is reviewed or revised, or 


after, I’m not exactly sure what kind of -- we 


haven’t even talked about what order of that -- 


those steps should occur in. So, that would -- 


I think -- there is a mechanism on the -- on 


the -- on the page already for ingestion. Re-


suspension, I’m a little -- I’m not so clear on 


whether there was a review on that, if not it 


would be -- it may not be well spelled out on 


an existing document, so it would need its own. 


And, so it would be a new one that would come 


out. It would be one of tho -- a new generic 


that would be identified and probably a good 


one to prepare. And the internal dose on 


fission products, if I’m not mistaken, one was 


recently published on that, there was an OTIB 


recently published on that -- that describes 


the approach and I -- I think it might be 


forty-three, I don’t have my list in front of 


me, but it might be forty-three, that addresses 

32 

that -- that issue and -- and so, would be 


subject to discussion. I know that topic is 


open on the procedure review subcommittee and 


so it -- that OTIB forty-three I think would be 


the document that would be the -- you know, the 


representation of NIOSH’s initial response. 


MS. MUNN: So, Stu can we leave that as an 


action item for you to report on the status 


for? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Of those three issues? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Very good, that’s on my -- 


DR. MAURO: The -- we’re an interesting 


boundary between -- I guess, selecting 


procedures for review or revise procedures for 


review and to close out of issues. 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: Because they’re transitioned and -- 


it sounds like that we -- we have a process of 


course, whereby we -- I think a classic example 


would be OCAS001 on the -- the big one, the big 


-- the very first one we reviewed, the large 


procedure for external procedure -- 


(unintelligible due to telephonic 

33 

interruption). 


DR. ZIEMER: You’ve got a lot of noise 


suddenly? 


DR. MAURO: I don’t know what that is, yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: There, it’s stopped. 


DR. MAURO: That’s good. But what I was saying 


is that we have a close-out process where we 


discuss resolution and very often -- and Kathy, 


you’re probably the closest to this of anyone, 


we basically leave it at a point that says, 


okay, there will be a revised procedure that’s 


going to be coming out, that will address those 


issues that we’ve identified in an earlier 


version, and we could do one of two things, I 


guess, is wait until that revised procedure 


comes out and then review. Or, we can simply 


close out the issues or review the issues and 


close them out without having to review the 


procedure. I guess -- and Mark -- we discussed 


this before, that is, you know, what 


constitutes tu -- you know, the clo -- the end 


product, the sort of period at the end of the 


sentence. Is it -- is it the actual final -- 


review of let’s say, a revised procedure and 


the close out of all the issues? You know, is 

34 

that how we -- the end of the process? Or do 


we end the process whereby we simply 


understand, based on our working group meetings 


that certain changes will be made and that, 


let’s say SC&A has reviewed the proposed 


changes, for example the ingestion pathway’s a 


good one, that was described in one of our 


meetings. And -- what was described to us was 


certainly sounds like a cogent sound approach, 


that was a new approach that was proposed by 


Jim. And -- but it was eventually going to be 


put into a procedure. So, I mean, you know -- 


it becomes a matter of you know, when -- when 


do we say a particular issue is closed? 


MS. MUNN: Well, there -- that’s -- I think the 


thing that’s been bothering some of us for 


quite a long time. There’s -- which end is the 


end? It’s very difficult to not know whether 


these items that we have still outstanding on 


the matrix somewhere are in fact being tracked. 


And, we’ve talked about this in the full Board 


on more than one occasion and we continue to 


bring it up again and I don’t think anyone is 


fully comfortable with our current process 


because from the work group point of view, we 

35 

are supposedly a temporary body. We do the job 


that’s assigned to us and then we’re done. 


But, if the job that assigned -- is assigned to 


us still has outstanding issues, we’ve 


identified what they are and have been assured 


that they’re going to be taken care of, but we 


then have to make the decision as to whether to 


maintain our viability as a working group or 


whether these opened items go into another bin 


somewhere, and are all through. 


DR. MAURO: A perfect example is right now, 


Mark had recently requested we forward to him 


the latest version of the -- the very first set 


of 30 procedures that were reviewed a couple of 


years ago. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: There is a -- there is a matrix -- 


you probably all have copies of it. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we got it this morning 


actually. 


DR. MAURO: -- and it’s --


MS. MUNN: Oh, we did? 


DR. MAURO: -- you know, goes back about a 


year, it was issued on July 26, 2006. Now, 


interestingly enough, one could say, okay, 

36 

here’s the set of, I believe, about thirty 


procedures that were reviewed two years ago -- 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- and -- a very extensive closeout process. But many of them terminate with 


the action being that there is going to be a 


revision. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, that is true. And we accepted 


that at that time as being the closure. 


DR. MAURO: Well -- and now it’s continuing, 


interestingly enough, Kathy, I believe as part 


of the second batch or the third batch, I’m not 


sure, I think the third batch. 


MS. BEHLING: The third batch. 


DR. MAURO: The third batch. We are actually 


reviewing. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. If I can just interrupt. 


DR. MAURO: Help me out, yes. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. Yes, in fact in our third 


set of procedures, two of the major procedures, 


the OCAS Implementation Guide One, which is the 


external dose reconstruction guideline and 


PROC006, which is ORAU’s procedure for dose 


recon -- external dose reconstruction, there 


were major revisions to those two procedures 

37 

and that we have reviewed in this third set. 


And what I did was go back to that original 


matrix and each of the findings in the -- in 


the original procedures, I identified those 


findings in a separate table in the -- in the 


review of the revision and you haven’t seen 


this yet, but -- the -- that -- review of this 


revised -- these two revised proceedings will 


have two tables in, not only our checklist, but 


a listing of all of the previous identified 


findings where NIOSH indicated that the 


resolution was going to be to make changes to a 


revision and I’ve identified whether those 


changes have been incorporated into the 


revisions. So, at least we’re attempting to do 


that when there’s a major revision to -- to one 


of the previously reviewed procedures. 


DR. WADE: This is Lew. There’s no question 


that this is an issue that the Board has 


grappled with and I’ll make sure that it’s on 


the agenda for our upcoming meeting. But, you 


know, ensuring closure between the work groups 


is not something that we’ve perfected yet, and 


I think it’s something we need to address at 


this next meeting, spend some time at least 

38 

starting to address. 


MS. MUNN: And, Kathy, such a list would be 


enormously helpful for me and I suspect the 


other members of the work group. It will make 


it possible for me to check against July of 


last year matrix, where my mark-ups have 


indicated watch this, watch this, watch this, 


and if I had your list of -- of what you are 


watching, that’s very helpful for me to compare 


where we are. 


MS. BEHLING: I -- I -- I will provide that to 


you, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you so much, Kathy. Any other 


comments on that -- that particular issue? 


My personal view is that the depths and level 


of detail that’s being undertaken is more than 


adequate, it’s quite thorough from my point of 


view. If anyone has a contrary view, please 


express that, otherwise my comments to the full 


Board when we report out will probably reflect 


my feelings with respect to how thorough -- how 


thoroughly we’re doing our job. 


MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon. Wanda, I 


just can -- if it’s possible, can John or Kathy 


review, I know this section is in each report, 

39 

on review protocol and again, not having 


everything in front of me. But -- I -- I -- I 


tend to agree with you. I have a question on 


the -- I think we need to be clear of what the 


review protocol was for the procedures. We 


weren’t looking here at application of 


procedures, certainly, we’ve -- I think we need 


to state what we were looking at. And, then on 


the workbooks, I’m not sure, maybe they could 


describe the review protocol for the workbook ­

- you know, “workbook procedures” that were 


reviewed and what -- you know, how far they 


pulled the string on those or did they 


(unintelligible) functionality or what exactly 


was done on those. It would be helpful for me 


just to -- just to -- just trying to come back 


to where we were, where we left off on these. 


MS. MUNN: Now, that perhaps that would be a 


good idea. 


DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. The report we 


just got, a couple -- well, let’s see, within 


the last couple weeks we got the May 2007 


report where they actually covered a number of 


workbooks and that report covered their 


approach for doing -- SC&A’s approach for 

40 

reviewing the workbooks. Is that what you’re 


asking about Mark? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. Maybe I just don’t 


have that right in front of me. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think we just got that 


report, probably just before our Denver meeting 


and probably no one had a chance to really look 


at it yet. I’ve only skimmed it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. ZIEMER: But, that may, in part, answer the 


question in terms of -- I think we have to look 


at that --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think that tells us what they 


did. We need to look at that in depth and make 


sure that we’re comfortable with -– ‘cause each 


of the sections -- well, they have a section 


called SC&A’s Approach for Task Three 


Workbooks, basically how they identified 


workbooks subject to review and how they 


approached that. I don’t know if John, if you 


have any comments on that, but I think that 


should, in part, answer the question. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, let me add, with regard to 


the procedure reviews, as opposed to the work­
41 

book reviews, I think it’s important that we 


make a distinction. The procedure reviews and 


the protocol that we follow is very formal. We 


actually prepared originally what our procedure 


would be and we’ve developed this checklist, 


it’s sort of a scorecard and every one of those 


procedures -- if you sort of thumb through, 


you’ll see as a scorecard, you can see where it 


is. And, it was structured that way 


deliberately so that you could score them, 


similar to the way we scored dose 


reconstructions. And you could actually have a 


measure -- a metric of performance. So -- so, 


there is a formal procedure that has been 


approved by the Board. Now, certainly, if you 


find that it is not serving us well, that is 


that procedure and that checklist, we will, of 


course, amend it. But, I think that we do have 


-- we did go through a very formal process 


regarding how we go about reviewing procedures. 


Now, regarding workbooks, that didn’t happen. 


The workbooks are interesting because they 


emerged on the scene sort of at the time we 


were preparing the second set. It became 


apparent that the workbooks are essential, they 

42 

really represent where the rubber meets the 


road. So, it was judged -- when we budgeted 


the last fiscal year, the previous fiscal year 


for 2006, that -- that, gee, there are all 


these workbooks out there that are very 


important to many of the key procedures and 


they need to be reviewed also. Because in the 


end, these are -- these are the tools that 


NIOSH is actually using to -- to do dose 


reconstructions. So, those workbook reviews 


became a very special project to fill a gap 


that became apparent only after we’ve completed 


or are well into the review of the second set, 


the thing called Supplement One. So, Steve 


Marschae as a matter of fact, is on the line 


with us, he ran that program and he prepared 


the report that you have before you, the May, I 


think it’s May 7th or it’s May 2007 report that 


contains our review of the selected workbooks. 


Now, the format, the approach, the procedures 


and scope of what was done was never discussed 


with the Board. We do now have a procedure for 


doing that and -- it was, basically, the 


judgment proposed by Steve and as agreed to by 


the team, that okay, this looks like a 

43 

reasonable approach. Now, bear in mind, you 


know, we’re going to continue workbook reviews, 


but now they’re not going to be a separate 


deliverable. The workbook reviews in the 


future are all going to be part of the review 


of the procedure because they really are 


coupled. But, we have -- we had a stop gap 


issue, that is, they only emerged, to our 


knowledge, in the last year (broken 


transmission)-- we had to capture those workbooks. So, that’s why there’s a separate workbook deliverable that you folks have received. 


But, I don’t think we’re going to have anymore 


like that (broken transmission). 


The rest -– in the future are going to be -- 


the workbook reviews are going to be part and 


parcel of the procedure reviews, where they 


belong. So, but nevertheless, the scope, 


content and approach that Steve adopted and 


used in the package you now have before you, we 


probably will continue to use unless certainly, 


we get other direction by the Board. 


DR. BEHLING: John, can I interrupt for a 


second? I think I need to address Paul’s 


comment. The original procedure that we used 

44 

was a Board approved procedure that I’d written 


back in September of 2004 and it was under tab 


three and is defined as a protocol for the 


review of procedures and methods employed by 


NIOSH for dose reconstruction. And, we issued 


that separately but it’s also an appendix in 


the review of all of the implementation guides 


and procedures that were reviewed under tab 


three at the time. So, you will see the two 


locations. Now, that had some very, very 


specific global issues as part of the, I think, 


seven different objectives. 


And, so that was very different from the workbooks. The workbooks really is defined by to 


what extent does the workbook reflect a 


particular written procedure in terms of the 


technical content. So, there’s quite a bit of 


difference between the review of workbooks as 


opposed to the review of the procedures 


themselves. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree. But, I think that 


that sets the stage for certainly the Board can 


make any judgment regarding either the 


procedures that we’re following for the 


procedure reviews or the format and content of 

45 

the workbook reviews. Because even though 


there won’t be separate workbook reports in the 


future, they will be part and parcel of the 


procedure reviews and the -- if there’s any 


aspect of the way in which we went about doing 


our work in the workbook report that you just 


received, please let us know and we can make 


the appropriate accommodations. 


MS. MUNN: There are two things there. One is 


I went back a couple of days ago and reviewed 


those original seven goals that we had approved 


as a Board as being comprehensive and fully 


acceptable as a -- the goals for the procedure 


reviews that were going to be done. And, the 


assurance that the workbooks are going to be 


incorporated with that same set of seven 


standards should be adequate for us, I would 


think. Does anyone have any problem with that? 


Your explanations, John and Hans, that -- that 


the workbooks are being incorporated with the 


procedure reviews would certainly seem to me to 


meet the criteria that we had established 


earlier. Does anyone else have any problem 


with that? 


MR. PRESLEY: Wanda, this is Bob. I don’t. 

46 

MS. MUNN: That’s a good thing. 


MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, this is Mark. 


DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer -- oh, go ahead 


Mark. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was just going to say, I 


think -- I think John’s indicated there was 


kind of a separate protocol which I haven’t 


reviewed, I gotta admit, given getting all the 


Rocky stuff I’m sure I didn’t focus on that 


when it came through. But the separate 


protocol on the workbooks, I still would like 


an opportunity to look at that and you know, I 


-- I think we -- we -- we approved the first 


protocol and I think that was fine for the 


generic procedures, but I think we should look 


at this other protocol at least -- 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I agree with that and I 


think we should -- we should -- you know, we 


need to do a formal review of this report 


anyway and its findings. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think there were -- I don’t 


know, there were just a half dozen workbooks I 


think in this --


DR. MAURO: Steve, there were nine? 

47 

MR. MARSCHAE: There are nine workbooks. 


DR. ZIEMER: There are nine workbooks, okay. 


But, we ought to look at the findings and the 


process and make sure we’re comfortable with 


that as well, even though, in a sense, this is 


a special report that kind of kicks us into the 


workbooks, but as you say, you’ll pick them up 


in a different way in the future, I guess. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. But you’re absolutely right 


though, I mean, when you read the introduction, 


the approach and the -- you know, the scope -- 


when you read the workbook report that you have 


before you, that will give you a pretty good 


idea of you know, what we’re doing and if 


there’s any aspect that you feel the -- that 


approaches could be improved, that would be 


part of the review cycle, the close-out cycle 


for the workbooks when we get to that point in 


this Task III working group. And, we certainly 


will then make those accommodations and when 


we’re doing future workbook reviews -- or this 


one of course, if, you know, you certainly 


could bounce it back and say listen, we’d like 


you do x, y and z to improve the scope and 


coverage of the workbook reviews and we could 

48 

certainly do that. This -- the workbook report 


that you folks have is a draft and it’s there 


for that purpose and certainly we’re -- you 


know, if there are cert -- if there are 


significant deficiencies, we will make the 


appropriate revisions. 


MS. MUNN: And John, as ashamed as I am to 


admit it, I read Supplement Two at the time 


that I had it in my hand. It was in that 


packet of materials which mysteriously 


disappeared from my hand day before yesterday 


and I was not able to find a place where I 


could restrict -- reconstruct it when I was 


trying last night. So, would it be possible 


for you to see that I receive a duplicate copy? 


DR. MAURO: Certainly. This happens a lot by 


the way, we understand there’s so much paper 


moving around, so many revisions, and we will 


send to you a -- the March -- I’m sorry, the 


May 2007 --


MS. MUNN: May, right. 


DR. MAURO: -- workbook, it’s called Supplement 


Two. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: We’ll -- I’ll have --

-- 

49 

MS. MUNN: I saw it, I read it, I don’t have it 


anymore. 


DR. MAURO: Do you want a hard copy and 


electronic or just electronic? 


MS. MUNN: Electronically will be just fine. 


DR. MAURO: Very good. 


MS. MUNN: Is there anyone else who is as 


sloppy as I am in their record keeping and who 


needs a copy of that? 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m not going to claim sloppiness 


or not, but I -- I don’t need a copy, I do have 


that one. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, I have the preceding one, but 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, please --


DR. ZIEMER: I do think we -- and I’m trying to 


remember, I don’t think we’ve developed the 


matrix on this one yet, have we Kathy? 


MS. MUNN: Not to my knowledge. 


MS. BEHLING: No, we have not. 


DR. BEHLING: And, while we’re on that issue 


again, I want to restate what I said earlier, 


the whole objective of a workbook review is 


strictly and very simply that of determining 


whether or not the workbook is a facsimile, 

50 

electronic facsimile of a written procedure. 


DR. ZIEMER: Of a procedure, that’s correct. 


DR. BEHLING: That’s all it is. In other 


words, we’ve reviewed the procedure and then if 


there are deficiencies that were defined in 


that review, that should obviously also be 


reflected in the change in the workbook. But, 


a workbook review is strictly saying, it’s what 


you stated in written format, transcribed into 


a workbook that is nothing more than a tool for 


the dose reconstructor to follow as opposed to 


a written, hard copy procedure. That’s all the 


workbook does. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. And -- and I guess, before we 


leave the topic, I’d like some agreement among 


the work group as to exactly what the product 


is we are asking from SC&A, with respect to the 


workbook. If they are in fact incorporated 


into --


DR. ZIEMER: Now, there are findings. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, yes, there are findings and we 


have nine workbooks that -- that are at issue. 


So, I guess what I’m asking is, do we really 


want a matrix for that, will we -- 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, for example, I just picked 

51 

out one here. I’m looking at the external 


ambient dose workbook, and SC&A said that there 


are instances where the tabulated ambient dose 


data used in the workbook do not agree with the 


data given in the procedure. 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. ZIEMER: So, there they’ve identified the 


discrepancy between the procedure that the 


workbook is trying to reflect. I think --


again, that’s a finding that needs to be 


resolved in some manner or other. Either the 


workbook has the wrong info or the procedure 


was out of date and it got changed. But, what 


-- whatever it is, it needs to be resolved and 


there’s a number of findings like that, I 


think. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, and I guess my real question 


is, do we want a separate matrix with respect 


to the workbook or do we want the workbook 


findings to be incorporated in the procedure 


matrix? I guess that’s my real question. 


MR. PRESLEY: Hey Wanda, this is Bob. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


MR. PRESLEY: If the procedure (broken 


transmission) -- the workbooks are on the 

52 

procedures, I could see both of them being 


incorporated into one and not have two separate 


matrix (sic) to have to go back and check a 


matrix procedure and a workbook procedure. 


MS. MUNN: It would seem more efficient to me, 


but I need to get a feel for how others view 


that. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Just speaking as an opinion 


here, this is Stu, and I don’t -- you know, how 


however the Board and the workgroup decide to 


do this, we’ll comply with them in that 


accordingly. The -- there is a -- a sort of a 


mode we’ve fallen into of a review product is 


produced and a findings matrix is produced that 


associates with that review product. 


MS. MUNN: Uh- huh. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And, that allows -- it leads me 


to think about it in an organized fashion that, 


okay, you know, I have a review product and I 


get that -- the findings matrix for that 


specific review product, I can work from those 


two documents. And, in an attempt, you know -- 


and continue following out the matrix. And 


when we -- and it will just -- I mean, it’s not 


a -- it’s not a flaw, a fatal flaw or anything, 

53 

but in a case where we have now decided that we 


will have a work product without a findings 


matrix, but rather we will insert its findings 


into previous existing matrices, then we’ll 


need to remember a year from now, why we can’t 


find a findings matrix for that -- for that 


review document. 


DR. ZIEMER: I -- I -- This is Ziemer, I kind 


of agree with that. I think since there is a 


work product, that there is a report with 


findings, it needs a -- it needs a resolution 


process even though it refers back to a 


particular procedure -- the procedure itself 


may have been fine, it’s -- it’s how it’s 


applied in the -- in the workbook. So, we need 


to -- that’s what needs to be resolved I think. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, so --


DR. MAURO: By the way, interestingly enough, 


we also see the reverse. 


DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


DR. MAURO: Is that we encounter the procedure 


are corrected in the workbook. So, I mean, 


both of those are --


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

54 

MS. MUNN: So, what I think I’m hearing is that 


the preferred approach is to have this to use 


the existing report as the report on the status 


of the nine workbooks and in addition, to 


produce a matrix indicating its short-comings 


in those specific workbooks, and we’ll then use 


that as our primary focus for addressing the 


workbooks. 


Somehow, we’ll need to fold that back into the 


procedures matrix. Am I -- am I getting that 


correctly? Is that what I think I’m hearing? 


We want a separate matrix on the workbook. We 


have the report, but we do not have a matrix. 


We are asking for a matrix, is that correct? 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, that would be my 


understanding. 


MS. MUNN: All right, NIOSH, an item is going 


to say we need a matrix on a workbook. 


DR. ZIEMER: It’s basically a matrix for the 


supplement to report. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. ZIEMER: Which of course is the workbooks. 


MS. MUNN: Correct. The one that I don’t have 


right now. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and we do have the 

55 

Supplement One matrix I believe, but haven’t 


done anything with it, right? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, we do have One. 


DR. ZIEMER: So, we are at some point going to 


need to focus on that as well. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. We do. Yes, Bob. 


MR. PRESLEY: Would we have a separate matrix 


on each workbook then? 


MS. MUNN: No. 


DR. ZIEMER: No. 


MR. PRESLEY: Oh, okay. 


MS. MUNN: A matrix on all nine workbooks. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it’d be on the report. 


MR. PRESLEY: All right. 


MS. MUNN: All right, so we’re all on the same 


page with that. 


SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS
 

My next question is, should a formal trigger 


for review of significant revisions of 


completed procedures be considered? I guess 


the corollary to that question is, whether the 


current process is adequate in that regard. We 


are apparently already making an effort to 


follow up on any revisions that are considered 


significant. 

56 

DR. ZIEMER: I’m trying to remember, this is 


Ziemer again, significant revisions, don’t 


those show up then in terms of what we put out 


there as for consideration for the task for an 


upcoming year? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. They are on our list. 


DR. ZIEMER: So we do identify them and ask the 


question, should this be reviewed again? 


MS. MUNN: We do -- we do -- we do that in the 


work group. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


MS. MUNN: Whether we need to review that 


again. But we’ve never identified any specific 


level of concern of whether or not that -- I 


guess I’m putting too many words in front of my 


tongue. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think -- I think the key is the 


word “significant.” In other words if there’s 


a minor revision like a page change and you 


know, some -- some editorial or even a minor 


change of a constant that was written wrong or 


something we wouldn’t ask for a re-review. But 


if -- if ORAU or NIOSH says we have made a 


significant revision, whatever that means, it 


seems to me that’s the point that we should 

57 

take a look. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you for articulating that a 


little better for me. 


DR. ZIEMER: I -- I don’t know that we always 


know what significant is, but it certainly is 


not a minor editorial change. 


MS. MUNN: No, it isn’t and my -- 


DR. ZIEMER: It usually means there’s some -- 


some change that will have an impact on -- on 


either dose or probability of causation. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, how -- whether --


DR. ZIEMER: Models have changed or something. 


MS. MUNN: Whether the end result is going to 


be affected. 


DR. ZIEMER: Now, I think if the procedure 


simply involves inserting something that’s 


already been approved, like, let’s say that the 


Board now -- oh, let’s say that the way that a 


particular risk is calculated, you remember we 


had the case where we eliminated at a threshold 


for one of the cancers and put in a continuous 


function at the low end. 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. ZIEMER: Insofar as that changes any 


procedure, I don’t think we need to go back and 

58 

review that procedure if we’ve approved that 


change. 


MS. MUNN: Agreed. I guess what this really 


boils down to is whether we are comfortable 


with making that decision as we have in the 


past, in the work group as to what constitutes 


enough of a major change to require an 


additional review. We’ve done that in the past 


and so far it seems to have worked all right. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I’m okay with it, the Board 


ultimately has to approve it anyway. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob. That would take --


if the Board did approve it, it would take some 


of the pressure off the Board. And then we 


could bring anything of what we considered a 


major change back to the Board for an approval. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, that’s -- that’s what we’ve 


been doing. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, this is Mark. I -- I -- I 


agree with -- I think if -- if we look back to 


this was supposed to be a base line procedures 


review. So, the idea being that if there’s, 


you know, I -- I think we go -- we do this once 


over theoretically with the idea and then we’re 

59 

going to see these procedures again in dose 


reconstructions. So, if there’s a new revision 


of it, you know, -- I think -- the bottom line 


is I think we’re doing fine and Kathy and SC&A 


is also monitoring this for us, looking at the 


significance, you know, if there’s a small 


change (unintelligible). 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, (unintelligible). 


MR. GRIFFON: But I think beyond that, I think 


if we stop this process, even if there are 


significant changes, they end up showing up in 


the dose reconstruction reviews beyond this 


work group. 


MS. MUNN: Right, right, now. I’m happy with 


it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 


MS. MUNN: Just wanted to make sure we all 


were. 


SC&A’S FUTURE SELECTIONS
 

And this I think probably overlaps and leads 


into the next question. Does the work group 


want to suggest that these procedures to 


include in SC&A’s future selections, as I 


interpret what we’ve done so far, virtually all 


of the procedures are being reviewed in one way 

60 

or another already. This is probably a moot 


question. 


DR. ZIEMER: I guess we do need to crosswalk to 


see if there’s any significant OTIB’s that have 


been missed. I think we’ve caught most of the 


OTIB’s. The P-R-O-C items, it seems to me 


there’s a number of those that we don’t need to 


look at. I’m looking at Stu’s list for 


example, ORAU has a procedure for notifying 


employees of termination. We don’t need to see 


things like that, I don’t think. 


MS. MUNN: Very true. 


DR. ZIEMER: Or a procedure on their library 


operations. 


MS. MUNN: No. 


DR. ZIEMER: Or, I don’t know, correspondence 


control. They have a number of internal 


procedures that have to do with how they 


operate their business that, you know, here’s a 


stop work procedure and, I don’t know, a number 


of odds and ends that have very little to do 


with dose reconstruction or site profiles, and 


we certainly don’t need to look at those. We 


haven’t looked at many of the P-R-O-C’s, have 


we John? Or --

61 

DR. MAURO: Well, we have a number of them. 


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, no, I think we’ve identified 


ones that are the crucial ones. There probably 


is another set of those we maybe should look 


at. And then there’s certainly some that we -- 


we can just forget about completely. 


DR. MAURO: Well right now I have an action 


item from the conversation we had earlier where 


we’re going to do a crosswalk. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: This listing that we have here, the 


June 18, 2007 listing that Stu provided and the 


work we’re doing now so that we can provide a 


table to you folks to identify which ones are 


already being reviewed and which ones are not 


currently in the process. And, including, 


revisions and we’ve identified those to the 


best we can. Now, this is where judgment comes 


in. If we are looking -- if we are currently 


reviewing one but there is a newer revision 


that is now out, I guess all we really can do 


is identify that to you, maybe with a brief 


paragraph explaining the nature of the 


revisions, similar to the way it’s described in 


the front end. 

62 

DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: And give you sort of a handy-dandy 


table that you could quickly say, okay, here 


are a list of all of the procedures that have 


not been reviewed by SC&A and are not currently 


being reviewed and here are all of the 


procedures that have been revised that are not 


-- you know, and what the nature of those 


revisions are. And then you could look at that 


and I guess from there, you know -- I’m sure 


Stu would probably want to take a look at that 


too to make sure we got it right. And then you 


would have a tool that would make, I think, 


life a little easier for you to decide which, 


if any of these, you would like to turn us on 


to do in fiscal year 2008. 


DR. ZIEMER: And basically that -- if you 


looked at the table of contents for your task 


three report and the two or three -- three 


supplements once the final one’s out, all of 


the items you’ve reviewed are indicated in 


there, is that correct? 


DR. MAURO: That’s correct, that was the reason 


we handed it out at the meeting. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

63 

DR. MAURO: So that you’d have -- 


DR. ZIEMER: So -- so, basically we can kind of 


do those crosswalks ourselves, but it would be 


good to have an official one. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah -- it’s your call. You know, 


if you’d like us to take care of that, we 


certainly are glad to do it, it should be -- or 


if you’d like --


DR. ZIEMER: Well, to make sure we’re all 


working off the same page, I guess -- I mean in 


principle we can do our own crosswalks, but we 


need to be all looking at the same page in case 


we miss something. So, I’m happy to have them 


do it, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: It’s on my action list right now. 


DR. ZIEMER: And -- and that’s something you 


can do probably -- probably pretty fast. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah. I’m now going to 


include that in the action list that I send out 


to you following this call. 


PER’S
 

Then the last question that I had was one on 


which I had some personal confusion. Should we 


be establishing a separate approach to PER’s? 

64 

I somehow had in my mind that SC&A was going to 


be addressing and reviewing PER’s, but that 


that was going to take place under task five. 


Now, I don’t know where I got that idea, but am 


I --


DR. ZIEMER: Lew, can you help us on that one? 


DR. WADE: Yeah, I mean, I think that this is 


the task that I always imagined that PER’s 


would be looked at, not task five. 


MS. MUNN: All right, I don’t know why -- 


DR. MAURO: In the past we have reviewed some 


PER’s and Steve, you probably could give us -- 


Steve Marschae -- so we -- task three has in 


the past included some PER’s and in this 


proposal that -- you folks haven’t all seen 


this but, we have included a unit cost to 


perform a review of PER’s, which is a -- is 


quite a bit different than the review of a 


procedure. Mainly because the PER review will 


include, likely, the review of actual cases 


that have been revised in accordance with the 


PER. So, it becomes a pretty special type of 


review, that for convenience, and its best home 


is probably task three. And, in our proposal 


of work that I just sent out to Lew and David 

65 

Staudt, I include a description. I may have 


sent -- I --


DR. ZIEMER: Well -- that’s your June 22nd
 

proposal and I don’t know if you sent it to the 


full --


DR. MAURO: I -- You know -- 


DR. ZIEMER: I got it as Chair --


DR. MUNN: I have it. 


DR. ZIEMER: but let me -- let me suggest -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: Because it has in it a proposal 


for reviewing PER’s and it seems to me the work 


group should look at that specifically, what 


you’re proposing. There’s five sub-tasks. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: And, it seems to me that before 


our meeting in Hanford, Richland, -- Wanda, it 


would probably make sense if we looked at that 


and if the work group could recommend to the 


Board whether this is the right approach for 


reviewing PER’s. 


MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


DR. ZIEMER: My reaction is it seems to make 


sense, but it seems to me it would benefit from 


having the work group at least look at it. 

66 

MS. MUNN: Actually, that -- that letter of 


yours John, is what triggered my -- my asking 


this question. 


DR. ZIEMER: So, it did get distributed to 


everyone in the work group? 


MS. MUNN: It may not have been, or I -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, Wanda, I may have just sent 


it to you, I -- I think that I -- you know -- 


when you’ve raised it. Did anyone else --


DR. ZIEMER: Mark, did you get it? 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, I didn’t. 


DR. MAURO: You did not --


MR. GRIFFON: I didn’t get it, no. 


DR. MAURO: If you’d like I could -- right 


after this call, I could send you -- it is a 


draft proposal that went in for consideration 


by NIOSH and the Board to the formal process. 


But, if you’d like to get an advance view of 


the draft so that, you know, you could start to 


take a look at it. It eventually, of course, 


it will go through the -- not only that 


proposal but all the others, of course, will go 


through the review and approval process by the 


Board. 


DR. ZIEMER: Now, that’s a list of PER’s that 

67 

are out there and we can --


DR. MAURO: Yes, it does. 


DR. ZIEMER: And we can be looking at those as 


well. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, I will send out to you, right 


after this, the proposal, the draft proposal to 


the working group. Or would you like me to 


send it to the whole Board? 


MS. MUNN: No, I think -- especially since it’s 


in draft form now --


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


MS. MUNN: And something may occur between now 


and the Richland meeting. 


DR. ZIEMER: And I’m not sure you need to send 


out the -- the breakdown of work hour 


allocations. 


DR. MAURO: Just the scope, yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think the scope is what the work 


group needs. 


DR. MAURO: Sure. 


DR. ZIEMER: I don’t know, Lew, at this point ­

-


DR. WADE: I will be sending the entire 


proposal to the full Board more formally so, 


for this work group I think the scope would 

68 

suffice. But the Board will see the full 


proposal before the Richland. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, right. But it’s --


this document won’t be available to the public 


per say, I don’t think, in its present form, is 


that correct? It has --


MS. MUNN: It’s a draft. 


DR. ZIEMER: It has --


DR. WADE: Good to have a version that will be 


released to the public, I don’t know -- 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. WADE: I think the documents you’re talking 


about and --


DR. ZIEMER: The scope is what we need in any 


event. 


DR. WADE: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Although, Lew, yeah, I spoke to Liz 


about -- you know -- what in these proposals, 


just for everyone’s information, there is the 


main body of the proposal, then there’s an 


attachment which is the cost proposal. As I 


explained to Liz, the main body is a proposal, 


it includes a scope, the people -- 


DR. ZIEMER: It doesn’t have hourly rates and 


such. 

69 

DR. MAURO: It doesn’t -- so the hourly rates 


and the way in which we came to our hourly 


rates are in a separate attachment. 


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, so if you leave off the 


attachment then you’re fine. 


DR. MAURO: Exactly, yeah, and the rest of it 


could easily -- it could be published to the 


public for release, you know, we have no 


problem with that. So -- so, it’s pretty 


clean. 


DR. WADE: For this work group, seeing the 


scope I think is important and then Wanda, 


having a bit of a caucus with your work group, 


you know, before the Board addresses it so you 


can signal the Board whether you’re comfortable 


with the proposal as it relates to the review 


of PER’s would be appropriate. 


MS. MUNN: That’s good. All right, then that 


goes on my action list as well. I assume that 


it will be taken care of before my action list 


gets out. That covers the specific questions 


that I had before addressing the matrix. Does 


anyone else have anything they want to bring 


up? It’s been such a long time since we’ve had 


a meeting that it’s a little difficult for us 

70 

to all get back on track here. But we have 


quite a task in front of us. The matrix is 


fairly comprehensive and so we need to make 


sure we are ready to look at that. Anyone else 


have any issues? 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob, I’m fine. 


MATRIX
 

MS. MUNN: All right. Summary of Task Three 


Supplement One Procedure Findings Matrix dated 


6-22-07. The original working draft was May 


21st of 2007. I assume everyone has had an 


opportunity to go through this at least in the 


perfunctory way, is that correct? 


DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


MR. PRESLEY: That’s correct. 


MS. MUNN: All right. The first thing I want 


to know is that there’s no way we can possibly 


get through this today, especially in view of 


the fact that NIOSH has not had an opportunity 


to respond to any of these issues. What I 


would suggest that we do is discuss whether 


there are specifics on this matrix that we have 


a higher level of concern about than others and 


make sure that both NIOSH and SC&A are aware of 


our concerns. Other than that I’m not at all 

71 

sure that it’s productive of our time and our 


efforts to really address the matrix in its 


totality. 


DR. MAURO: I have a suggestion that might be 


helpful for the next meeting. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: And so that NIOSH has a chance to 


respond. When -- you all have the thick report 


and it’s a lot of reading, you know, I read it 


cover to cover, the -- it did take the entire 


day for me to read it cover to cover, just in 


case we did get into today. 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: But, one of the things that I found 


that could be very useful to everyone is if for 


each one of the approximate thirty procedures 


that are reviewed in that -- in that Supplement 


One, there is a check-list and it’s broken down 


according to the seven objectives that Hans 


described earlier. And if we put a little 


score next to it, now what happens is, you look 


down very quickly, within the matter of 


seconds, you could look down the check-list for 


each review and you’ll -- and you’ll see next 


to the criteria, it’ll have a number and it 

72 

will be anywhere from one to five. If you see 


any ones, that means we’ve got a real problem 


with a particular issue. And -- and in terms 


of sort of like -- the degree to which you’d 


like to go after the more important issues 


first, you’ll see, when I went over them I 


noticed that most of the procedures faired 


very, very well, they had all fives. Some have 


fives with a couple of fours. But there were a 


number -- I would say -- a fraction, a small 


fraction of the thirty, maybe -- maybe five or 


six had a couple of ones, a couple of twos and 


threes. So, what -- what I’m getting at is, to 


help you all, if it helps expedite the process, 


you could quickly zero in on at least the areas 


where SC&A feels that this might be something 


important. And, you may want -- so if you do 


want to prioritize items, that’s one way to do 


it. Or alternatively of course, we could just 


march through each one of the issues as listed 


in the seventeen pages of the matrix once NIOSH 


has a chance to look at it. So, I mean, we do 


have the wherewithal to -- you know, to sort of 


focus in or just go systematically through the 


whole thing. 

73 

MS. MUNN: You’re suggestions are focused and I 


don’t know why I didn’t pick up on your already 


having scored your view of concerns, but I 


didn’t. There’s a good one from my 


perspective. 


DR. MAURO: You know what might be useful, now 


that I’m thinking about it. On the matrix 


itself, the score -- see each one of these 


items that you’re looking at, these are 


basically findings -- 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- associated with each procedure. 


What we don’t have on here is a score where we 


assign that finding. 


MS. MUNN: Right, we don’t. 


DR. MAURO: The fact that it’s a finding, it 


could be a four. If it’s a four it means 


that’s really you know, something that needs to 


be taken care of but it’s really not all that 


important. If it’s a one, it’s something 


that’s important and I think if we had that on 


this table that might be very helpful. If 


you’d like us to reissue this with that little 


score next to it, that might make life a little 


easier for everyone. 

74 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, or -- or you can just go to 


the report. It’s -- it’s -- I don’t know if 


you have your report handy but you have a roll 


up in the findings and it goes through each one 


and gives the let’s see -- I guess it’s the -- 


I guess the roll up is the number of -- of 


times the score showed up, right? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. 


MS. MUNN: I think so. 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m -- I’m looking at it now -- 


MS. MUNN: But again, we have to cross-walk if 


we --


DR. ZIEMER: We’d have to cross-walk it then. 


MS. MUNN: And it would be much, much simpler I 


think, if we did have the score on the matrix, 


if you could incorporate that with 


(unintelligible) John. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, and -- obviously 


NIOSH is -- in a sense, needs to answer all the 


items, but the ones that have the ones are the 


critical ones, right John? 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: And, I’m trying to look and see 


how many ones there are in here. 


MS. MUNN: There are a couple, but not -- 

75 

DR. MAURO: Not many. 


MS. MUNN: Not many, no. Most of them were -- 


most of them were, as John said, fives. Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Fives -- and if it’s a five it 


doesn’t make it to the matrix, that means it’s 


perfect. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, right. 


DR. MAURO: Now, if it’s a four, it’s -- you 


know, there were a number of fours, but very 


few ones. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, there are --


DR. ZIEMER: I guess I see seven ones. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. ZIEMER: And, two, three, four, five, five 


twos. 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, very few twos, I see but -- 


a number of threes. 


DR. ZIEMER: But Wanda was your original 


question -- what was the thrust of the original 


question? Should we --


MS. MUNN: The original --


DR. ZIEMER: -- ask NIOSH to concentrate on 


certain ones or what? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, my -- the thrust of my original 

76 

question was how best to address the matrix so 


that we can get to the thorniest issues without 


spending too much time on things that are going 


to fall out automatically. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So obviously it’s the ones 


and twos as a start; what about threes John, 


what does that mean? 


DR. MAURO: Well, it’s the level of importance 


-- it’s a continuum that if you recall -- it’s 


really a judgment call made collectively by the 


team when we score these. 


DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: And three, really -- it means -- 


you know, it’s sort of in the middle. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: And, you know, by putting the score 


on the matrix, at a minimum, you know, it at 


least gives you a feel for this particular set 


of thirty. That is, if we had the score there 


and you just quickly went down the seventeen 


pages, you’ll get a quick feel of which 


procedure might be the ones that we probably 


want to pay a special attention to because it’s 


got some ones and some twos. And, my opinion 


of ones with the -- you’re going to find that 

77 

there are an awful lot that the most they have 


is a four and you know, in our opinion -- this 


is of course the SC&A judgment, it’s something 


that is readily resolvable and not a -- you 


know, it’s not a critical one. So it’s just 


another tool that might help the process, if 


you’d like, and it’s easy enough to do, to put 


the score associated with each line item in the 


matrix. 


MS. MUNN: That would be very helpful for me. 


I’d like to hear something from Stu. Stu, is 


this a viable approach for you to -- I don’t 


know how much of this particular matrix you and 


your team are going to have an opportunity to 


respond to before our next meeting and I have 


no intention of allowing this work group to go 


another year without having a meeting. We’re 


going to have to address this very quickly. 


So, we’re --


MR. HINNEFELD: Are -- are you talking about 


the -- the meeting with the full Board in 


Richland? 


MS. MUNN: I’m talking about our next work 


group meeting. I -- I need to get some feel 


for how much time you and your team are going 

78 

to need to respond to these matrix items. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, off the top of my head, I 


thought about that before this and -- so it’s 


not entirely off the top of my head. It would 


seem that a -- a work group meeting 


approximately mid-way between the Richland 


Board meeting and the date of the following 


meeting, which I believe is the first week in 


October, would provide us sufficient time to -- 


or, you know, maybe a little closer to the 


October meeting, that would provide us 


sufficient time to get some responses onto the 


matrix and distributed to the working group and 


SC&A, in advance of that date so that there 


could be some, you know, some digestion of 


those responses before the meeting. I really 


despair of having anything of meeting ready for 


the July meeting. 


MS. MUNN: No, I don’t really anticipate that 


there’s any way you can do that, given what’s 


on everybody’s plate. I doubt that the work 


group could be effective between now and then 


either. 


DR. ZIEMER: No, uh-uh. 


MS. MUNN: No, I didn’t really expect that. 
I 
79 

just wanted this current meeting to occur and 


for us to get a better feel of how large the 


tasks were with this second group and when 


we’re going to be able to get to it. If we 


don’t do this, then we’re not going to stay on 


the priority list and we have to do that. 


MR. PRESLEY: Hey Wanda? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob. Could we go back 


and instruct them not to -- to start with the 


ones and twos first? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. PRESLEY: Try to knock some of the higher 


priority stuff out and the lower priority stuff 


we can look at down the road. 


MS. MUNN: That’s essentially what I’m -- what 


I’m asking, Stu, also, if that’s a logical 


approach from his point of view. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we’ll focus on ones and 


twos. Of course, my guess is that the ones and 


twos will be the most difficult to resolve and 


respond to and resolve. And, so it may be that 


we can, on the way, since we’re evaluating that 


procedure anyway, we might be able to provide 


responses from the others, and so I wouldn’t -- 

80 

you know, I wouldn’t --


MS. MUNN: Right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Which would be a relatively 


small effort. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If you’re working on a 


procedure and with only a slight effort you can 


say, you know, this -- this change is -- is 


going to be -- it will be incorporated in this 


revision, --


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- that would be something we 


could respond to as well. The -- but, it would 


not be -- the focus of the work will be on the 


ones and twos and then probably the threes as 


well. And, so, that will be the focus of the 


work. And then we can provide, in advance of 


the next meeting, what we have accomplished by 


that time. And whether -- it may not be all of 


them, resource -- you know, being somewhat 


constrained for the next three months, it may 


not be all. But I think we can certainly 


provide decent responses to quite a number of 


them. 


MS. MUNN: Understandable. 

81 

DR. ZIEMER: So, if we met sort of, maybe in 


September or something, we might be able to -- 


MR. HINNEFELD: That would -- that would be my 


suggestion, I think we could have some -- some 


useful information out in advance of a meeting 


on that date. 


MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Wanda, I have a question for the 


working group. In the process of preparing for 


this conference call, Kathy, Hans and myself, 


you know, we -- we reviewed the -- the package, 


and Hans had made a couple of very interesting 


observations. One of the procedures, one or 


two of the procedures, and remember, we did 


this review over a year ago, and we’ve gained a 


lot of experience with, over the past year, in 


reviewing particular cases. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: And, -- and, if we were to re-


review that procedure today, this really only 


affects one of them as a matter of fact. We 


may come away a little bit more critical and 


I’m not quite -- and in light of the fact that, 


you know, I just want to alert the Board that 


we’re in this sort of funny place, that we’ve 

82 

performed our review to the best of our ability 


about a year ago, of course -- over the course 


of the year, we know a lot more. And, now that 


we look back we realize that, well, maybe some 


of these procedures in some respects are fine 


and in other respects we do have some, it looks 


like a little bit more serious a problem than 


we thought we had. 


DR. ZIEMER: I have a suggestion on that. This 


is Ziemer. I’ll just throw this out as an 


idea. Why not issue a revision or an addendum, 


for example, for Task Three Supplement One or 


let’s say, Supplement Two. You could have an 


addendum which could both change a finding and, 


and its ranking. I don’t -- I don’t see why 


you shouldn’t use -- if there’s newer 


information than -- and different concerns, it 


seems to me we need to deal with whatever it 


really is. 


DR. MAURO: All right, that would be fine and 


we’d like to --


DR. ZIEMER: That’s one suggestion and maybe 


the others don’t agree with that. 


MS. MUNN: Sounds reasonable. 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob, that’s fine with me. 

83 

A revision -- or to me what I think a revision 


would probably be --


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. I also 


wanted to interject something here because I 


was a little bit caut -- I wanted everyone to 


be a little bit cautious about the ranking. 


But now I think we may clear that up based on 


your suggestion. Because there are some 


procedures that have fours on them that are 


going to require a little bit more attention. 


So, if you’re going in the direction that -- 


that we’re going to make changes to this -- to 


this current supplement, that’ll be fine. But 


otherwise I would be a little bit cautious 


about just dismissing our fours. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. That’s -- by the way 


Kathy, that’s why I brought this up. I know 


the particular procedure where I assign the 


four to a particular issue when I review the 


procedure and subsequent to that, Hans and I 


have had a chance to discuss that particular 


issue, and my guess is Hans would more likely 


make it a one. So, I know at least one case we 


have that situation, one procedure. I -- I 


know from my perspective, an addendum would be 

84 

a lot easier for us rather than reissue the 


entire report, because I think in going over 


the entire report, it’s ninety -- ninety-five 


percent I would not change. There is one, 


maybe two procedures out of the thirty that 


this issue of, you know, is important. 


DR. ZIEMER: But if you do an addendum you may 


have to revise at least the executive summary 


and the roll-up. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: But, however it’s done, you can 


have a -- you could have a revised summary or 


something too. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. I’m -- I’m -- yeah, I’m not 


sure mechanistically how best to do that, we 


could have --


DR. ZIEMER: I mean I don’t -- I don’t see any 


point in reissuing a hundred and thirty pages 


if you’re changing two or three. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. Maybe we could just 


send in replacement pages for the procedure 


reviews that we’d like to revise. They may 


only have the one to two procedures. Yeah, we 


pull this one, put this in -- 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don’t know and maybe David 

85 

Staudt would have some recommendations on that 


in terms of how they’d prefer it done. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


DR. BEHLING: This is Hans. There are a couple 


of problematic issues here in revising this 


because as John mentioned earlier, when we 


first started out, we were obviously novices 


like everyone else and we’ve changed our mind 


about a number of things. And, there are 


findings that, at this point, stand, but can’t 


be corrected because some of the findings 


related to, for instance, the structure, the 


readability, the format of the implementation 


guide, etcetera, that at this point are 


questionable in terms of should they be 


revised. Because the implementation guide at 


this point has a very, very limited value to 


the dose reconstruction. For instance, we 


identified issues and findings regarding 


uncertainties as they were described in the 


implementation guide as being too tedious, too 


difficult and almost impossible. Well, the 


workbooks today have a radial button that says 


we’re doing all these calculations for you and 


therefore the finding has been essentially 

86 

eliminated because of its advances in workbooks 


that have been made that take care of this very 


tedious task in the computerized fashion. So ­

-


DR. ZIEMER: But that would come out in the 


resolution process anyway, wouldn’t it, in the 


matrix process? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, Paul and Hans, I think that 


that type of change or issue is very manageable 


in the close-out. I’m more concerned right now 


about places where we assigned something a four 


or a five, when in retrospect now, we probably 


should have assigned it a two or a three. And 


-- and I don’t want to -- the only reason this 


came to mind is while we were talking about 


assigning numbers on the matrix, I realized 


that some of those issues that are in there, we 


probably would want to assign a -- a more 


severe number to now. To one particular 


procedure. And that’s the only reason I -- you 


know, I thought of it while we were talking. 


Mechanistically how we do the -- you know, I’d 


like to do it the most expeditious way. I’m 


not quite sure what that is right now. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. For our 

87 

purposes John, if you could let us know and the 


work group know which procedures will be 


addressed in the addendum, then we, perhaps, 


could hold those -- our work on those in 


advance, you know, if we were going to do any 


work on them. 


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Until the -- until the addendum 


came out, but we could proceed a pace on the 


remainder of the procedures that are not going 


to be addressed in the --


DR. ZIEMER: Well if you’re only talking about 


two or three John, maybe you could get an 


addendum out fairly fast. 


DR. MAURO: Oh -- oh, we could get an addendum 


out very quickly on these because we know 


exactly what they are. 


DR. ZIEMER: A few weeks -- yeah, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: So, I -- I’m more concerned about 


the mechanism -- however we do it, it could be 


done quickly. The -- I’m more concerned about 


the -- the cumber -- how cumbersome it is. 


Like for example, reissuing a two hundred page 


report is expensive -- but -- just issuing some 


type of addendum that’s only maybe five or six 

88 

pages, that becomes a lot easier to do. But 


then again, I don’t want to cause confusion, 


oh, what I do with this paper and what about 


the electronic file. I’m just not sure how 


best to handle this. Kathy --


DR. WADE: John, this is Lew. We can work 


through that I think. I think this is not a 


trivial change we’re talking about, so 


certainly it needs to be well documented. 


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


DR. WADE: I think we need to sit with David 


and talk about the most efficient way to do it. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


DR. WADE: But I think it is important that it 


be well documented. 


MS. MUNN: Let me place a recommendation for 


addenda if at all possible, just simply from a 


mechanistic point of view, as long as we don’t 


confuse the traceability of what we’re doing. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


MS. MUNN: It certainly is, by far, it appears 


the most effective and expeditious way to get 


this done. So, do we have an item for John and 


Lew to discuss this? 


DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

89 

MS. MUNN: Okay. Very good. 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob, that’s fine. 


MS. MUNN: Okay. Now, that being the case, can 


we agree then that we will postpone our -- our 


addressing the items on the matrix until this 


particular discussion has been -- has been -- 


has been taken place and the matrix has been 


reissued with the ratings. The question arises 


with respect to the ratings also, is there any 


objection to the reissuing of the matrix, 


including a change in the ratings, is there any 


problem with that with anyone? 


DR. ZIEMER: It makes sense. 


MR. PRESLEY: That’s Bob -- This is Bob, I’m 


fine with that. I tell you -- I tell you what 


we ought to do though, they might want to 


asterisk the changes. 


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh, yeah, yeah, good, good. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. If you do that, then that 


would -- would take another paper load off of 


our back. 


DR. MAURO: That will be good. Yeah, and Hans, 


I think we know which ones they are so we could 


probably reissue the matrix with the score and 


those places where we have made a revision to 

90 

the score on that particular line item with a 


little asterisk next to it, so that everyone 


knows that this is -- this is, by the way, one 


of those, you know, that -- that are going to 


be affected by the supplement that eventually 


will be coming out. And that would allow the 


process to move forward pretty nicely. 


MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Excellent. All right. 


SCHEDULING
 

Now, that being the case, let’s take a look at 


calendars to see what we can do. Stu had said 


that he’d like us to push the date out towards 


September. I’ll have to tell you, my September 


looks pretty bad right now. 


MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, the only time that I have 


in September is the week of the 17th that I 


could possibly meet. 


DR. ZIEMER: Are we talking face-to-face or 


phone? 


MS. MUNN: I’m thinking face-to-face next time. 


I think as we start through this -- through the 


findings on the matrix, we need to be in the 


same place and we’re -- we’re starting to work 


on the nitty gritty then. My -- my preference 

91 

would be -- Stu tell me if this is even 


feasible, my preference would be a face-to-face 


along about the third week in August. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Is that the week of the 20th? 


MS. MUNN: The 20th, 21st, yeah. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’m on vacation that week. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, you’re on vacation that week. 


And, springing this on you early the next week 


would be ugly, wouldn’t it? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, if it’s toward 


the end or later in the week, it would give me 


a couple days in the office to get my mind back 


around it, because our initial -- our initial 


responses would have to be out ahead of that -- 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: You know, before I went on 


vacation. That would give us, oh, something 


less than a month after the Board meeting to 


put them together. Of course, we wouldn’t have 


to wait for the Board meeting, to start. 


MR. PRESLEY: You talking about the -- the last 


week in August? 


MS. MUNN: Yep. 


MR. PRESLEY: The week of the 27th? 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

92 

MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If we -- if we go the week of 


the -- I mean, August 27th we can shoot for and 


we can -- we can get to the -- to the Board and 


SC&A in advance of that date what we can 


accomplish at that time and address what we can 


address at that time. 


MS. MUNN: How about the 29th? 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m okay on the 29th . 


MS. MUNN: How about the rest of the Board, 


Mark? 


MR. GRIFFON: I’m sorry, the 29th of August? 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


MR. GRIFFON: Is that where we’re at? Yes, I’m 


okay. 


MS. MUNN: Good, Mike? 


MR. GIBSON: Yeah, I believe so. 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob, I can do that. I’d 


much rather meet on a Monday or a Friday. 


MS. MUNN: Well, my Friday has me in Seattle 


with my spouse’s spine. 


DR. ZIEMER: Priorities --


MS. MUNN: That has been occupying a lot of my 


time. 


MR. PRESLEY: If we have it in Cincinnati, I 

93 

can fly up there that morning and fly back that 


night. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. WADE: Okay, so that’s the plan then, 


August 29th in the hotel at the Cincinnati 


airport. Do you have a preference for time, 


would anybody be trying to fly in that morning? 


MR. PRESLEY: I can start by nine o’clock, 


that’s no problem. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I’m going -- I’d be flying 


in that morning, but I can get there by -- 


certainly to start by nine. 


DR. WADE: Okay, let’s tentatively say nine, 


with an understanding that we might have to 


wait a couple of minutes for people to taxi 


over from the airport. 


MS. MUNN: Just to make real sure, let’s say 


nine thirty. And that should cover everybody. 


My guess is this will take most of the day. 


Because, it depends of course on how NIOSH -- 


NIOSH can get that done between now and then 


and we just can’t expect miracles. 


The next issue then is how much we can get done 


actually before the October meeting. And if 


we’re successful in getting what we need to get 

94 

done the end of August, could we look forward 


to the possibility of this group meeting the 


day before the October meeting? We haven’t 


identified where we’re going to be yet. 


DR. WADE: The dates for the meeting in October 


are 3rd, 4th and 5th . 


MS. MUNN: Yes, that’s a Wednesday, Thursday, 


Friday. If we could plan on having work group 


meetings the preceding day, it might be 


productive for us to look at that. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I could do it. 


DR. WADE: Okay. 


MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob, I could do that. 


MS. MUNN: Do we have any clues, Lew, where 


we’re going to be? 


DR. WADE: No, I don’t, I mean I’m open to 


suggestion. We’ll talk about it you know, when 


we get together in Hanford. You know, I -- I 


hate to commit too early because I want to make 


sure that we go to where the -- the action is. 


But, at this point I don’t know where, I’m open 


to suggestions. 


MS. MUNN: Mark, Mike, is Tuesday, October 2nd
 

going to be doable for you? 


MR. GIBSON: Yeah, it should be. 

95 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it looks okay with me. 


MS. MUNN: Okay. Let’s tentatively plan on 


that, regardless of where we are. That will 


put the two, probably key meetings for this 


work group, back on the calendar and we can 


plan accordingly. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yep. 


MS. MUNN: All right? 

DR. WADE: Okay, sounds good. 

MS. MUNN: All right, I’ll get out a brief note 

of -- of -- a draft of what I think our action 


items are and we’ll expect our work group 


members or SC&A or NIOSH, if you have 


additional items that should be on our to-do 


list that I’ve missed, will you please let me 


know before I send out a firm list and we will 


then plan on seeing you here in Richland. 


DR. ZIEMER: Very good. 


DR. WADE: Thank you very much. 


MS. MUNN: Does that fit everybody’s -- 


MR. PRESLEY: That’s fine, Wanda, I apologize 


for being on, I had a little -- little problem 


with my telephone usage. 


MS. MUNN: Well, that’s all right, I’m glad you 


got on, I’m glad Stu’s front desk was going to 

96 

allow him to talk with us today and Mark, I 


hope your tooth is okay, whatever those teeth 


were, I hope they’re fine. One question for 


all of you, are all of you going to be here the 


night -- well, I guess Lew, you’re not going to 


be here the first day are you? 


DR. WADE: Correct. 


MS. MUNN: Is everyone else planning on being 


in Richland --


DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: -- the night before? 


DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


MR. PRESLEY: Yes. Hey, Wanda? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. PRESLEY: How long does it take to get from 


the airport on in to Richland? 


MS. MUNN: About twenty minutes. 


MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: Max. 


MR. PRESLEY: So --


MS. MUNN: The airport’s easy to negotiate. 


You’re longest wait is going to be getting your 


-- getting your luggage. Your car won’t take 


any time at all. 

97 

MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: And, the route here is 


straightforward. 


MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: If you’d like I can send you a map. 


DR. MAURO: Do we need a car or can we get a 


cab? 


MS. MUNN: You can get a cab -- if you are 


going to get around Richland at all, you will 


need a car. But, yeah, can get a cab over and 


I would not be surprised -- I think our Red 


Lion here has a shuttle too. 


DR. MAURO: Oh. 


MS. MUNN: I’d have to double check just to 


make sure. But, I’m fairly sure they make 


airport runs. So, it’s -- it’s fairly easy to 


get here. My -- it’s my hope that since -- 


looking at Lew’s tentative agenda, it looks to 


me as though most of our evenings are going to 


be broken up into small chunks while we’re 


here. I don’t know how many people are going 


to stay over after -- after the end of the 


session. But, we have a really, really nice 


restaurant in one of the new winery’s and I’d 


like for as many of us as possible to get a 

98 

chance to go up there for dinner, if possible. 


MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, I’m not flying out until 


that Friday morning, I can’t get a -- I can’t 


get any flights out late. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, well it is hard to get out of 


here, that’s why I had hoped, perhaps, people 


may stay over until Friday. Do you have any 


feel about that yet Lew? 


DR. WADE: No, I would think more will be 


staying than not though. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, I would think so. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, probably. 


MS. MUNN: Well, all right, I’ll make some 


grand plan. 


DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 


MS. MUNN: We’ll in touch by email very 


shortly. I will expect any additional data 


that needs to be on our -- our to-do list to 


come back to me fairly soon, I’d appreciate it. 


DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you all. Bye-bye. 


(Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 12:15 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

99 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of June 26, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


26th day of August, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102 


2 

3